No skin piercings, but the beard seems to mark me as a "gun guy," so I have been informed. I don't get it about the law having a problem with open carry if it's legal. Unless they feel that only they should be allowed to do so. Why else would they care?Quote:
Originally Posted by GunGeezer
NC is considered a traditional OC state. Basically, it's legal because it is not illegal. Unlike permit states, where you get the snazy piece of paper from the state that says you are OK to carry. In NC as long as you can legally possess the gun, you can OC it. Personally, I like it that way. It's a right, it's backed up as such by case law, it keeps the legislature from interfering too much. But it seems that some LEO's have an issue with it not being legal per state statute. You'll hear things like "kinda legal", "not a good idea", or the ever popular "if someone complains you are breaking the law." All of which are wrong. But for the most part, the cops out there working the street know it's legal to OC. They don't like to admit it sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by multistage
While a traditionally gun freindly state (as are most southern states) NC Has been swinging to the left in recent years, due in part to the influx of out of state people to work in the financial insustry in Charlotte. Governor Bev Purdue is an obvious example. I suspect some of this is a clash of "new vs old".
If you think it is bad now, wait until this summer when the DNC holds their Nuremburg Rally, I mean their national convention.
Move to Oklahoma.
Quote:
TITLE 21 § 1289.24 FIREARM REGULATION – STATE PREEMPTION
A. 1. The State Legislature hereby occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation in this state touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance, or regulation by any municipality or other political subdivision of this state. Any existing or future orders, ordinances, or regulations in this field, except as provided for in paragraph 2 of this subsection and subsection C of this section, are null and void.
WNC is too darn pretty to move. And even though he laws are a bit odd, where it hits the road folks are still pro gun. There's more talk about the obscure stuff than prosecution. It's mostly just for show. That said, we're headed back towards the right politically speaking. I bet it continues with the next election. We passed a much stronger Castle Doctrine, possibly one of the best in the country right now, in one session. There were a lot of other perks to that bill too. It's been stalled in a weaker version for several years. Now if we can get them to move on Restaurant carry. That's coming up this spring.Quote:
Originally Posted by paaiyan
Vote him out,,,, along with the KING ,,,, OBAMA
No because it is not their cash it is the tax payers cash . DA and Police Chief in Madison Wisconsin made it clear he could spend their money all year long he will keeping doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldVet
Federal 42 Sec 1983 Deprivation of civil rights under color of law is against the individual not the municipality; then just for s___s and grins you can run on up the ladder; 1985, Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights against every supervisory officer in the dept; 1986 Neglect to Prevent Interference with Civil Rights against city/county attorney, prosecutor, city/county councilmen, mayor.......
Again these are against the individuals not the tax payers.
Federal 42 Sec 1983 Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law is against the individual not the municipality; then just for s___s and grins you can run on up the ladder; 1985, Conspiracy to Interfere With Civil Rights against every supervisory officer in the dept; 1986 Neglect to Prevent Interference with Civil Rights against city/county attorney, prosecutor, city/county councilmen, mayor.......
Again these are against the individuals not the tax payers. Oh and then there is 1988, attorneys fees just for a final kick.
Try to enforce it when they control the court all sounds good but real world no go every fine in Wisconsin has been paid by the tax payer and the few pay outs barely covered court cost.
1. Inquisitive is fine. When they begin to stop and detain people, that moves beyond inquisitive, and into civil rights violations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landric
2. Patrolmen aren't paid to investigate, they're paid to enforce laws, or chase suspects. It's the job of detectives to investigate crimes.
Yes, at least sometimes that is the case. However, a lot of people seem to misunderstand when something moves into a legal detention. Obviously if an officer (wrongly) arrests someone for open carry, then that is a civil rights violation. On the other hand, if an officer says to someone "Sir, may I speak with you for a minute" and the person stops to speak with them, that is not a seizure and not a violation of anyone's rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbledork
One of the reasons I am against open carry (for me -others are free to make their own choices) is that it is quite possible for someone who hates guns and/or gun carriers to make a false report about someone open carrying and claim they took some action they did not (like brandishing a firearm). Such a report would amount to at least reasonable suspicion for the police to detain the open carrier, and things can go south from there.
Completely incorrect. Patrol officers conduct all sorts of investigations in departments all over the country. Some smaller departments don't have dectives at all. In many departments being a "detective or investigator" isn't a promotion, just a lateral transfer to a different set of job priorities. Generally speaking it is up to patrol officers, and patrol supervisors, to decide which cases to investigate themselves and which ones to forward on to the detective division. Police are paid to do police work, plain and simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbledork
You only missed one point.....Forsyth County is trying to circumvent Federal law with local ordinances which is in itself illegal. The NC NRA is just waiting for a case in this matter and they are ready to come forward with legal and monetary assistance. Tanglewood is really strange...They serve booze one day a year at the steeplechase and in the golf pro shop lounge. So the county is using that as a cover all for no ccw. Can't wait until they charge someone......Hello NRA...glad to have you aboard...........
well well well. Isn't this interesting.
I started a thread a few days ago about why I am against OC. This thread seems to bolster my reasoning and the points I presented. I was admonished by some that this sort of thing rarely happens if ever.
LE oft does NOT the law. Case in point. I am a amateur radio operator. During a traffic stop I was cited for "illegal possession of a police scanner". Black letter law allows me to have a scanner because amateur radio operators are exempt from the law prohibiting citizens having police scanners in their car.
The cop did not know the law. I still had to go to court....hire a attorney...take time off from work etc..
What punishment did the jack booted thug who wrote the citation receive? Zero.
OC? I don't need nor want the hassle nor the possibility of appearing on LE radar.
If anyone has the time...money and where with all to deal with this, then by all means go ahead and OC. As an average joe, I don,t have any option but to stay off their radar screens.
What exactly do they think will happen if someone is carrying in a park ? LMAO. It's pure stupidity. The cities tried that here, and the state legislature went right back and amended the law to say .... no cities can prohibit conceal carry in an public areas, parks, walk-ways, parking lots, etc. and went right down the list ...... LOL. They modified it so that the only place no - one could carry , is "IF " it was a building and the entrances were posted with the approved AG signage. Cities whined a LOT. And what happened ? Nothing .... people carried in parks and absolutely NOTHING has ever happened.
Now, the state has it that the cities can only regulate the manner of open carry (eg holster, etc) .... not prohibit it ..... and they are making the same stupid arguments they did before. The anti-s, just don't want to face the facts, the record --- which speaks for itself... they just don't like guns and don't want them.